Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8762443" data-attributes="member: 6778210">I mean it is absolutely pedantic given how strictly you attempt to define &quot;balance&quot;, and it really is a concession given that you're concept of &quot;levels of unbalance&quot; is just a semantics game to say exactly what people have been talking about with the commonly-understood idea of &quot;game balance&quot; being about things being roughly close to each other rather than exactly equal.No, it's just a semantics game. This whole thing is more concerned with specific verbiage than having an actual discussion.No, this is you trying to completely negate the concept of &quot;balance' wholesale, engaging in weird word games to avoid actually talking about what is balanced and unbalanced in the game. It's completely unnecessary to talk about &quot;levels of unbalance&quot; when we can just talk about the concept of balance as it is commonly understood and not as something require laser-precision.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Justice and Rule, post: 8762443, member: 6778210"] I mean it is absolutely pedantic given how strictly you attempt to define "balance", and it really is a concession given that you're concept of "levels of unbalance" is just a semantics game to say exactly what people have been talking about with the commonly-understood idea of "game balance" being about things being roughly close to each other rather than exactly equal. No, it's just a semantics game. This whole thing is more concerned with specific verbiage than having an actual discussion. No, this is you trying to completely negate the concept of "balance' wholesale, engaging in weird word games to avoid actually talking about what is balanced and unbalanced in the game. It's completely unnecessary to talk about "levels of unbalance" when we can just talk about the concept of balance as it is commonly understood and not as something require laser-precision. [/QUOTE]

Verification